• transit disasters
  • workers compensation
  • airline accidents
  • nursing home negligence
  • Injured Children
  • 18 wheel truck accidents
  • social security disability

Hip Replacement Medical Malpractice Lawyers

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, Dangerous Devices and Surgical Implants, Hip Replacement Lawyers

Most hip replacements are performed on patients between 60 and 80 years of age.  Seniors in Miami, Aventura, Hallandale, Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale, Pompano Beach, Deerfield Beach,  Boca Raton, Delray Beach, West Palm Beach, Ft Myers, Venice,  N. Miami Beach, Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, Sarasota and thru-out Florida are recipients of failed Hip Replacement Implants. Although you may think your failed hip implant is the fault of your doctor it is actually a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Our Hip Replacement Lawyers Are Reviewing Hip Failure Implant Cases For:

  • Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Neck Cases
  • Stryker ABG II Modular neck Cases
  • Stryker Exeter Hip Replacement, Citation Hip Replacement, Meridian Hip Replacement,
  • Reliance
  • Hip Replacement, Definition Hip Replacement, Restoration
  • Stryker Accolade (TMZF) Stem cases with Cobalt Chromium modular heads. These stems have the potential for significant head neck corrosion   Cases with Metallosis.
  • Wright Medical Conserve Cup (MOM)
  • Wright Medical Profemur Stem Cases (this is their modular neck design)- Fracture (either the titanium or CoCr necks) and Metallosis.
  • Depuy ASR and Depuy Pinnacle Metal on Metal (MOM) with modular heads
  • Zimmer Durom Cup cases with modular heads greater than 36 mm
  • .Zimmer M/L Taper Kinectiv Stem cases (this is their Modular neck design)
  • Biomet M2A 38mm / Magnum MOM
  • DJO / Encore MOM hip cases. All cases with revision surgery
  • Omnilife Apex Arc
  • Smith & Nephew R3 (MOM) cup cases
  • Smith & Nephew SMF stem
  • Hip Replacements with a diagnosis of Chromium or Cobalt blood toxicity
Our Attorneys are also reviewing cases for the latest Stryker Hip Replacement Recall of the Metal V 40 Femoral Heads. This recall effects the: Exeter, Citation, Meridian, Reliance, Definition, Restoration, Accolade Rejuvenate and ABG 2 stems.

Xarelto Lawyers Continue To File Xarelto Lawsuits

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, Dangerous Drugs, Injury Lawsuit News

Xarelto Lawyers  Filing Of Xarelto Lawsuits

Oir Xarelto blood thinner lawyers are  filing excessive bleeding lawsuits  against Bayer AG and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Xarelto lawsuits have been consolidated in an  MDL by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and are overseen by U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon. One such lawsuit was filed by a New Jersey woman claiming the blood thinner drug Xarelto killed her aunt. Xarelto has caused injury due to unstoppable bleeding.  There have been serious injuries and  deaths. Injury Lawyer Network  Xarelto lawyers are filing lawsuits  to  show that the manufacturers are at fault for allowing Xarelto to remain on the market knowing the risks of excessive bleeding with no antidote available to stop the bleeding once it starts. Xarelto Lawsuits Include Claims For: Xarelto Internal Bleeding Xarelto Gastrointestinal Bleeding Xarelto Rectal Bleeding Xarelto Brain Hemorrhaging Xarelto Excessive Bleeding

Did Xarelto Cause The Death Your  Loved One?

If someone on Xarelto  is injured and  begins bleeding, physicians are unable to get their blood to clot, and must  resort to life saving measures to keep the person alive. If you or a loved one has been injured by Xarelto bleeding or you have lost a loved one from fatal bleeding contact our Xarelto team.  

Cook IVC Filer Lawyers | Bard IVC Filter Lawyers

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Bard IVC Filter lawyers, Class Action Lawsuits, Cook IVC Filter lawyers, Dangerous Devices and Surgical Implants, Injury Lawsuit News

Cook and Bard  IVC Filter Shows Risk of Perforation

IVC filters are  small, metal cage-like device used to prevent blood clots from entering the lungs. They have shown to have a high risk of puncturing a major blood vessel.

The Cook Celect Filter Lawsuits

Vena cava perforation  resulting from IVC filters in the inferior vena cava, the large vein that carries blood back to the heart has been shown to cause perforations. These filters have small prongs called struts that act like a cage for blood clots. These devices can  puncture, or perforate, the vena cava wall. Did you Get a perforation from the Vena Cava filter?

Cook Vena Cava Filter  Lawsuits Are Being Filed due to  Cook’s IVC filter  safety issues

  • Cook Celect  Filter Cook
  • Gunther Tulip Filter
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration first issued an IVC Filter  warning  in 2010. The FDA said filters may fracture and move throughout the body and perforate blood vessels and organs. In 2014, the FDA updated this warning, stating retrievable filters should be removed within two months of implantation.

Did C.R. Bard Know of  The Risks?

C.R. Bard is also named in lawsuits   involving:
  • Recovery, G2 
  • G2 Express filters.
Our IVC Filter lawyers are reviewing injury claims for the Bard and Cook IVC Filters  

Chevy Cobalt Recall Lawyer For Ignition Switch Failure

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Accidents Injuries Wrongful Death, Class Action Lawsuits, GM Ignition Switch Class Action, GM Key Switch Recall Lawsuits, gm lawsuit for gm ignition recall settlement, Injury Lawsuit News

 GM Chevy Cobalt Ignition Failure  Lawsuit  Settlement

GM has settled a wrongful death lawsuit, Melton v. General Motors et. al., for an ignition switch failure. There are more then 1.4 million vehicles with defective ignition switches thru-out the U.S In this lawsuit the victim was a female who died in a 2010 accident involving a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. This was this woman’s 29th birthday.  Lawyers claimed  that the ignition key  failed, causing her to suddenly lose control of the vehicle. She was hit by another vehicle and drove into a creek. GM has  admitted that they knew about these  problems with the ignition switch in 2004. This was  before the 2005 Chevy Cobalt was being sold. They did not recall the Chevy Cobalt’s but  instead , sent a notice to dealers and created a snap-on key cover to fix the situation. This was hardly an answer to a massive and very dangerous  problem. Since then General Motors has  announced a plan that sets a $1 million starting point for each death in accidents caused by a defective ignition switch in GM cars.
 January through June 2014, GM has recalled the following cars:
  • Buick Lacrosse – 2005-2009
  • Buick Lucerne – 2006–2011
  • Buick Regal LS & GS – 2004–2005
  • Camaro – 2010-2014
  • Chevrolet Cobalt – 2005 to 2010
  • Chevrolet HHR – 2006 to 2011
  • Chevrolet Impala – 2000-2014
  • Chevrolet Malibu – 1997-2005
  • Chevy Monte Carlo – 2000–2008
  • Cadillac Deville – 2000–2005
  • Cadillac CTS – 2003-2014
  • Cadillac DTS – 2004–2011
  • Cadillac SRX – 2004-2006
  • Oldsmobile Alero – 1999-2004
  • Oldsmobile Intrigue – 1998-2002
  • Opel GT – 2007 model year
  • Pontiac G5 – 2007 to 2010
  • Pontiac Grand Am – 1999-2005
  • Pontiac Grand Prix – 2004-2008
  • Pontiac Pursuit – 2005 to 2006
  • Pontiac Solstice – 2006 to 2010
  • Saturn Ion – 2003 to 2007
  • Saturn Sky – 2007 to 2010
Were you or a loved one injured or was a loved one killed in a GM Chevy Cobalt ignition key failure? Speak to one of our GM ignition key failure recall lawyers to file a claim  

Bard Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Settles

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Accidents Injuries Wrongful Death, Class Action Lawsuits, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

As our vaginal mesh lawyers continue to file vaginal mesh lawsuits we are alerted to the fact that Bard has settled another vaginal mesh lawsuit. Although we do not know the settlement amount, it appears the vaginal mesh manufacturers are starting to see the results of their injuries to women.

 By Jef Feeley – Sep 14, 2013 12:01 AM ET
C.R. Bard Inc. agreed to settle a woman’s claims that one of its vaginal-mesh implants caused internal problems before a trial set for this month in New Jersey, two people familiar with the accord said.
Bard officials agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve Melanie Virgil’s claims that Bard’s Avaulta Plus insert caused urinary problems, said the people, who asked not to be named because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the settlement. Virgil’s case had been set for a Sept. 23 trial in state court in Atlantic City, according to court dockets.
It’s the second vaginal-mesh case Bard settled since a federal jury in Charleston, West Virginia, ordered the device maker last month to pay $2 million to a woman who blamed the company’s Avaulta devices for her injuries.
Bard, based in Murray Hill, New Jersey, faces more than 8,000 claims over the Avaulta line of inserts, which women allege can cause organ damage and make sexual intercourse painful when the devices erode. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Endo Health Solutions Inc. (ENDP) and Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) face similar claims that their implants, threaded in place through vaginal incisions, shrink over time.
Scott Lowry, a Bard spokesman, didn’t immediately return phone and e-mail messages yesterday seeking comment on the settlement. Don Migliori, one of Virgil’s lawyers, declined to comment yesterday on the settlement.
Cases Consolidated
Many of the implant cases against Bard and other manufacturers have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston for pretrial information exchanges. Other cases have been filed in state courts in New Jersey, Missouri and California.
Bard officials pulled the Avaulta implants off the market last year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered all makers of the devices to study rates of organ damage, infection and pain during sex linked to their products.
A California state court jury last year found Bard liable for a woman’s injuries related to an Avaulta implant in the first case to go trial in a U.S. court. Jurors said the company should pay $5.5 million in damages. Bard is liable for only $3.6 million under that state’s law.
The West Virginia jury concluded Aug. 15 that Bard should pay $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages to Donna Cisson, a nurse from Georgia who had an Avaulta Plus device implanted. Cisson said the mesh damaged her organs and caused other ailments, in the first case to be tried in federal court.
Virgil, a junior high school music teacher in Colorado, sued Bard after her Avaulta Plus device began to erode, according to court filings. The 56-year-old women said she needed three surgeries to address urinary problems created by the insert, according to the filings.
The case is Virgil v. C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR), ATL-L6917-10, Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Atlantic County (Atlantic City). The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 10-md-02187, U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Are Progressing, Vaginal Mesh Settlements Announced

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Accidents Injuries Wrongful Death, Catastophic Injuries, Class Action Lawsuits, Dangerous Devices and Surgical Implants, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

The vaginal mesh bellwether trials are proceeding with 2 positive settlements that will set the tone for expectations of future vaginal mesh lawsuit settlements. Vaginal mesh lawyers applaud jury verdicts in favor of the injured women.

A jury has decided for the vaginal mesh victim in the first of over 4,550 lawsuits in the multidistrict C.R. Bard Inc. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2187). Donna Cisson, who suffered severe injuries after the implantation of Bard’s Avaulta Plus Posterior BioSynthetic Support System, was awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages plus $1.75 million in punitive damages.

A Bakersfield woman was awarded a  Vaginal Mesh Claim Jury verdict of approx $5.5 million dollars. The woman, Christine Scott, sued the manufactures of surgical mesh C.R. Bard Inc. due to side effects caused by vaginal mesh. The woman was awarded $5 million dollars for pain and suffering after 9 different surguries were apparently needed to correct her problems. The woman's husband was also awarded $500,000 for his loss of intimacy.

On Feb. 25, 2013, a New Jersey jury awarded $3.35 million to a South Dakota woman who had to undergo more than a dozen surgeries  to repair damage caused a vaginal mesh implant manufactured by Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit.

As we can see there is a trend here. Jury's are outraged at the neglignce of these manufacturers and are siding with the injured victims. There are thousands of women with a implanted mesh. Many are just starting to realize their complications are from a mesh.

Many states have reached the statute of limitations cut off date on July 13th 2013. However, we have attorneys that are still accepting mesh lawsuits from all states. You are encouraged to file your vaginal mesh lawsuit immediately.

Florida Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Continue At a Rapid Rate

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, Dangerous Devices and Surgical Implants, Dangerous Drugs, Injury Lawsuit News, Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits, Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

Injury Lawyer Network Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit Department Accepting Transvaginal Mesh Injury Cases

The vaginal mesh has been used in mass in women nationwide for uterus, bladder and bowel prolapse as well as urinary incontinence. The only problem is that these Prolene mesh are failing and the lawsuits cannot keep up with this rapid failure rate. This is what happens when manufacturers push their products thru on the FDA "fast track".

A Prolene mesh is a synthetic plastic which has been either attached to the pelvic wall or wrapped around the uretha, When these mesh start to fail it is no laughing matter. Women are suffering severe complications, doctors have not been responsive and vaginal mesh lawyers are filing mesh lawsuits nationwide. There are a number of manufacturers and a huge number of mesh products. Do not be confused, no matter what the name, if you have a failed mesh with symptoms of, increased incontinence, severe pain, infections, bleeding, severe pain during relations, and the mesh protruding into the vaginal canal you may be a victim of a failed vaginal  mesh.

See a urogynecologist and call immediately to get on the list for the vaginal mesh lawsuits against

AMS Vaginal Mesh lawyer,

Ethicon vaginal mesh lawyer

C.R Bard vaginal mesh lawyer

Boston Scientific Vaginal mesh lawyer

Coloplast vaginal mesh lawyer

Mentor vaginal mesh lawyer

and others

Latest Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit News

 American Medical Systems Caldera Desara Sling Lawsuits

A transvaginal mesh lawsuit was filed against American Medical Systems Inc. in the Superior Court of Los Angeles on June 6, 2013. The complaint stated that the “Caldera Desara Sling System” and “Xenform Mesh” caused the plaintiff to suffer organ perforation and painful intercourse. As a result of the allegedly defective medical device, the plaintiff underwent transvaginal mesh revision surgery and continues to suffer from irreversible damage.

Plaintiff claims “permanent injury”

The plaintiff had the device implanted on May 16, 2008 at the POH Regional Medical Center in Pontiac, Michigan. The product was intended to treat the patient’s stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. However, the lawsuit states that, as a result of the defective device, she has suffered “significant mental and physical pain and suffering, has sustained permanent injury, will likely undergo further corrective surgery, autoimmune disorders, has suffered financial or economic loss, including but not limited to, obligations for medical services and expenses, and has endured impaired physical relations.”
Vaginal mesh attorney makes allegations

The plaintiff’s transvaginal mesh lawyer contends that the manufacturers are guilty of “wrongful conduct, acts, omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations.”

The suit contends that American Medical Systems failed to disclose the risks involved and knowingly released dangerous products into the marketplace. Reported injuries and complications included: mesh erosion, blood loss, neuropathy, infection, inflammation, scar tissue, painful intercourse, blood loss, chronic pelvic pain, nerve damage, fecal incontinence, organ prolapse, and other issues.

Women were forced to undergo surgeries to remove parts of their genitalia, receive injections in the spine, and take prescriptions of medications that they would need to be on indefinitely.
Specific causes of action for the transvaginal mesh lawsuit include:

    Strict products liability – failure to warn
    Strict products liability – design defect
    Negligence
    Breach of implied warranty
    Breach of express warranty
    Deceit by concealment
    Negligent misrepresentation
    Intentional misrepresentation

Florida Vaginal Mesh Lawyers Seek Damages

The plaintiff, through her transvaginal mesh lawyer, is seeking compensation for past and future damages, past and future economic loss, loss of earnings and impaired earning capacity, past and future medical expenses, past and future mental distress, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and any other relief the judge deems necessary and proper.
Surgical mesh litigation background

According to the lawsuit, there has been a litany of complaints over vaginal mesh implants for nearly a decade. The most common complaints were hardening of the mesh, erosion, extrusion, chronic pain and painful intercourse. Studies showed the rate of erosion to be 13 percent, with painful intercourse rates as high as 63 percent. Analysis of the first 100 transvaginal mesh procedures revealed a failure rate of  17 percent.

In 2004, the World Health Organization called the vaginal mesh failure rates “unacceptable.” On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a public health notification describing over 1,000 adverse events related to pelvic mesh repair systems.

To date, more than 4,000 women have secured the services of a qualified transvaginal mesh lawyer to file complaints against manufacturers of vaginal mesh systems. Defendants in these cases include Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson), Boston Scientific, Coloplast, and more.
 

 

Mirena IUD Helpline Launched, Uterine Perforation From The Mirena

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, Mirena IUD Lawyers

More and more women are filing Mirena IUD  lawsuits against  Bayer, the same maker of Yaz birth control pills, for their Mirena IUD injuries.  The Mirena IUD is gravitating from position, becoming embedded in the uterus or a nearby organ resulting in perforation of the uterus or a nearby organ.

Mirena Silicone IUD lawyers of our dangerous drug and devices class action division are filing lawsuits for women injured by the Mirena.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Jul. 2, 2012 – The http://Yazbirthcontrolpillshelpline.com has lauched a Mirena IUD Helpline and a new Mirena IUD division for women experiencing complications from the Mirena IUD. "Women are the target for many dangerous drugs and medical devices" says, Lisa Spitzer MSW who supervises the new Mirena IUD division. "Birth control is a money maker and women are the targets".  "The women we speak to have had serious complications from the Mirena IUD. The device has gravitated out of position and severed  the uterus.".

Birth control  has become the focus for lawsuits. Yaz and Yasmin, are in the news right now with lawyer ads. Is the Mirena next ? These birth control medications and devices  are causing injuries to women in NYC, Florida, Texas, California, and all over the U.S.A.
The  latest dangerous birth control  device is the Mirena Silicone IUD. The Mirena IUD is manufactured by Bayer,which manufacturers Yaz, interestingly enough. It is a flexible intrauterine device that is placed into the uterus through the vagina by a  GYN. Mirena releases a continuous dose of hormones (levonorgestrel) to prevent pregnancy for up to five years
. .
Our women callers report the  device has moved out of each original position and punctured the uterus or become firmly embedded in the uterus. Many state the doctors cannot find it . The Miriena has caused bleeding and other very serious complications. The new Mirena IUD Helpline is helping women with these complications. "Many women are telling us the doctors are refusing to remove the Mirena and many must have it surgically removed". The http://yazbirthcontrolpillshelpline.com will continue to expand services to women as a resource for new news about dangerous birth control devices harming women. They are also working in conjunction with the well known http://vaginalmeshhelpline.com to get the  message out there. The vaginal mesh is another dangerous device effecting  over 300,000  women.

If you have been injured by the Mirena IUD call now for a Mirena lawyer.

GranuFlo Lawyers Filing Lawsuits For Cardiac Injury

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, GranuFlo

Injury Lawyers are filing dialysis medication lawsuits against the manufacturers of granuFlo and Naturalyte. 

Dialysis patients and their families and caregivers who suspect that their  loved ones may have been treated with granuFlo and Naturalyte and suffered cardiac injury as result should contact our dialysis medication injury lawyers immediately to learn about  the current lawsuit underway.

The March 29, 2012 FDA class I GranuFlo recall of the products, commonly used in clinics, warns people of post treatment complications including:

  •     GranuFlo Heart Attacks,
  •     Stroke from GranuFlo,
  •     New cardiac problems,
  •     Dialysis medication Death,
  •     GranuFlo Cardiopulmonary Arrest

Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits Update, Pelvic Mesh Lawyers

Written by Auto Accident. Posted in Class Action Lawsuits, Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits

The  pelvic mesh, vaginal mesh  lawsuits continue to proceed as new vaginal mesh horror stories are told every day. Vaginal mesh lawyers are hoping to get justice for women injured by these prolene mesh devices. There are currently two main MDL's in process.

Pelvic Mesh Lawsuits

    American Medical Systems:  Elevate, Perigee and Apogee
    Boston Scientific: Advantage Transvaginal Mid-Urethral Sling System, Pinnacle Posterior Pelvic Floor Repair Kit, Obtryx Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System, Polyform Synthetic Mesh, Prefyx Mid U Mesh Sling System, Prefyx PPS System, Uphold Vaginal Support System
    C.R. Bard, Inc.: Avaulta, Pelvisoft BioMesh, Pelivicol Acellular Collagen Matrix, Pelvitext, and Pelvilace
    Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon: Gynecare, Gynemesh, Gynecare Prolift, Gynecare Prolift+M, Gynecare Prosima and Gynecare TVT

 Federal pelvic  mesh cases have been consolidated into five multidistrict litigations (MDL) based on the manufacturer they’re filed against.

Trial Dates For 2013

On Thursday, December 6th, the Court intends to hold the next status conference.  Among items of discussion include the possibility of setting trial dates in 2013.

New Jersey Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit MDL

Ethicon transvaginal mesh lawsuits currently pending In re Pelvic Mesh/Gynecare Litigation, No. 6341-10 continue to move forward in New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic County Division. According to court records, the Honorable Carol E. Higbee has scheduled the litigation’s next management conference for December 11, 2012.

 

Send all inquiries to: Injury Lawyer Network

7050 W. Palmetto Park Road, Boca Raton, FL 33433
Attorneys who cover Boca Raton, Delray Beach, and Palm Beach County

1401 Broadway, New York, NY 10018

20 N.Orange Ave, Orlando, FL 32801
Attorneys who cover Orlando, Winter Park, Winterhaven, Kissimmee,Ocala,Atlamonte Springs,Deland,Melbourne, Daytona. Orange,Osceola,Seminole,Lake,Volusia, Polk and Brevard Counties

5713 Corporate Way, West Palm Beach, FL
Attorneys who cover: Lake Worth, West Palm Beach, Jupiter, Stuart,Port St Lucie, Okeechobee, Belle Glade, Vero Beach, Palm Bay Palm Beach, Martin, St Lucie and Indian River counties

200 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131
Attorneys who cover Miami, Hialeah, Miami Beach and the Florida Keys including all of Dade and Monroe counties

110 E. Broward Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale , FL 33301
Attorneys who cover Hollywood,Fort Lauderdale,Pompano, Deerfield Beach, Coral Springs and all of Broward County

3630 W. Kennedy Blvd., Tampa, FL 33360
Attorneys who cover Tampa, Brandon, Clearwater, St Pete, New Port Richey, Brooksville, Sarasota, Naple, Venice, Bradenton, Fort Myers, Cape Coral and all of Hernanado, Citrus, Pasco, Pinnellas, Hillsboro, Sarasota, Manatee, Lee and Collier counties.

10151 Deerwood Park # 200-250, Jacksonville, FL
Attorneys who cover  Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach, St. Augustine, Orange Park all of Northeast Florida including Marion Sumter, Flager and Duval counties. Also Attorneys who cover Northwest Florida including: Tallahassee, Pensacola, Panama City and Starke.

233 Peachtree Street N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303
Attorneys who cover Atlanta, Decatur, Roswell, Marietta, Jonesboro, Gainesville, New Smyrna, Fayetteville, Buford, Cartersville, Lilburn, Macon, Augusta, Savanah, and all of Georgia.

1001 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20001

4201 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90010

Alabama: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Colorado: Colorado does not certify attorneys as specialists in any field.

Florida: The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

Iowa: The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice do not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor do they mean that such a lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Kentucky and Oregon: THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT.

Mississippi: The Mississippi Supreme Court advises that a decision on legal services is important and should not be based solely on advertisements.

Missouri: Neither the Supreme Court of Missouri nor the Missouri Bar reviews or approves certifying organizations or specialist designations.

Nevada: The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert.

New Mexico: LAWYER ADVERTISEMENT.

Tennessee: None of the attorneys in this firm are certified as a Civil Trial, Criminal Trial, Business Bankruptcy, Consumer Bankruptcy, Creditor's Rights, Medical Malpractice, Legal Malpractice, Accounting Malpractice, Estate Planning or Elder Law specialist by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization. Certification as a specialist in all other listed areas is not currently available in Tennessee.

Texas: Unless otherwise stated, attorneys claiming certification in an area of law are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Texas lawyers may participate in a privately sponsored internet service that obtains information over the internet from potential clients about their legal problems and forwards the information to lawyers who have paid to participate in the internet service.

Wyoming: The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credential and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. *** If you do not have the money to hire an attorney, you should call the legal aid office in your area. Because the law does change, this site and the information in it may have become outdated. You should be aware that changes may have taken place in the law or in court rules that would affect the accuracy of anything shown here.